Preemptive Strike = a physical strike made prior to a physical attack being made against the person. thus pre-empting the attack with one of your own.

Striking first, throwing the first punch etc = the act of being the first person to initiate a physical strike/attack. it can be preemptive or premeditated. it is simply the one who hit first, or attempted to hit first, regardless of motive.

I understand the stance being taken by Midnight Crawler and don't intend to try and change his mind, but I am curious what your feelings is on other preemptive actions besides a strike. for example What is you opinion on preemptively restraining someone with a lock /hold what ever as opposed to hitting them.

Legally holding someone could still be considered assault, even just touching them in some areas.

Another thing we should remind ourselves of is the fact that we are from different countries, and although in general western countries do have similar laws ( actually probably most countries) they are different even between states in the same country.

for eg up until a fairly recently, in NSW Aust one at to prove it was self defence wheres as in QLD one had to prove it wasn't. It has now changed in NSW.

Innocent til proven guilty I think the best post on the thread was this.

Quote:

Here I am on this thread again after I'd already made my point...

As with anything, strategy and tactics depend completely on the situation at hand. To say you are either for or against preemptive striking is absurd!

To say that you would avoid violence when possible is more like it. That's the only sane thing to do. Drastic times call for drastic measures however if it that situation arises, do what you gotta do to go home - what EVER the hell that may be.

Its sort of ridiculous to come here and take a stand one way or the other because just as soon as you say you're against preemptive striking, life will make a liar out of you.

Me, I'm all about the love. That's avoidance. That's making friends of enemies, buying a person a beer, etc and SHOWING them I'm not afraid of 'em. But I do know when to beat feet and when the opportunity presents itself, I'll bolt and not look back. No ego problems here.

At the same time, if someone is in my way through the door, heaven help 'em. It's just a matter of doing what you have to do, no more, no less. Why make a case about it?

-John

Nuff said

_________________________
"They say the only way to kill a lion is with a rear naked choke, but I'd just kick it in the head"

Ummm? I'm not being pedantic (I hope) but how on earth can you restrain someone who hasn't launched any physical attack? This is a real question, to which I do not have an answer.

My opinion is that a restraining move would be far less likely to see you in court than a striking move, and if applied with skill would be less likely to do damage to the opponent. Yes I could live with that outcome, as I'm not appointing myself Judge, Jury and Executioner.

I still don't understand how a person who has yet to make a move could be restrained though, I mean what would you be restraining them from? Drew mate, would you care to explain?

dude..seriously your missing the point. You are stopping them from hitting you, it doesn't matter whether they've done it yet or not, it matters what they are about to do. If you are sure they are going to hit you, then do something about that, whether it be running, hitting them or grabbing them

_________________________
"They say the only way to kill a lion is with a rear naked choke, but I'd just kick it in the head"

I think this is valid. However, we need to ascertain how you can be sure that someone is going to hit you. If you can prove that they were going to beyond reasonable doubt in court, you're in a good position to claim self defense.